The best to me is Bottle Shock, watch it at least once a week. The movie is a feel good, beat the big guy. I love the music and the actors are all very good. Makes me want to open a bottle of wine watching it. Sideways was a dark movie,was hoping for a happier ending. My two cents.

Gary T wrote:The best to me is Bottle Shock, watch it at least once a week. The movie is a feel good, beat the big guy. I love the music and the actors are all very good. Makes me want to open a bottle of wine watching it. Sideways was a dark movie,was hoping for a happier ending. My two cents.

If you lived in Napa for almost 20 years were in the business and knew some of the history of Napa and the people involved in making that history you would want to vomit watching Bottle Shock. No reality, no truth, no real history, or real people. I'm sorry it was a piece of crap, which everyone who has participated in this valley would also agree.

I'm pretty much a movie buff but I've still missed a fair few from the list. Netflix, hold for delivery!

I will say that I thought "Bottle Shock" was terrible and it had no right to be. Randall Miller that is on your head. I blame it on your time in TV. With that story, a reasonable/very good acting crew, and some nice scenery it should have stormed the palace and amazed the callous. Instead the plucky down home underdog one upping snooty wine culture was hackneyed and at points cringe inducing. But I don't want to be too harsh. The titles were professionally done.

"Mondovino" I very much liked. It had a very obvious slant, but it presented its case in an engaging fashion. You can not beat the vérité of the vineyard. The digital photography comes off much better than expected. The editing on the "short" version is well done. I understand the criticisms but it still works for me.

As has been noted "Sideways" is not actually about wine. I would say wine may be a character in the film, but it's really about people. Incredibly flawed, but absolutely true people. Very good film.

I would proffer that the great wine movie has yet to be made. Any investors, ship me cash or crates of La Mouline and I will see that it gets made.

Interesting that there is such dislike of "Sideways". Its a movie I can watch with much enjoyment, and have many times. There may be several reasons for this. First, it is way better than the book it is based on which is a rambling mess; the screenplay award was very well deserved. Second, it reminds me of the "road trips" I was involved in while at university (in Australia) - we weren't anywhere near as bad/flawed as Miles and Jack, except for one of my friends who was a pretty good facsimile of Jack in terms of his use (really misuse) of some of the women in his life; I can also think of one female who had very similar characteristics. Third, I think that movies/writing about flawed characters are instructive, or should be. But then I’m a fan of JP Donleavy and Leonard Cohen. Finally, I love the music which by itself is very lively and goes with anything that is crisp and white. As for it not being a movie about wine, I can only scratch my head at this. There is just so much in there that is about wine, not the least of which is Maya’s monologue on why she likes wine and Miles on Pinot noir.

One movie, which is not a wine movie, but which is about a faculty a wine lover should have, a sense of smell, is “Perfume”. Its another dark movie and if you don’t like “Sideways” then “Perfume” probably isn’t for you either. But then that is why there are so many wines and so many movies, and songs, and paintings, and…………

Mike Pollard wrote:Interesting that there is such dislike of "Sideways".

I don't actually think that Sideways is an objectively bad movie - it is certainly well made on a "technical" level. I just don't personally feel it is a likeable film. Much in the same way that there are many Parkerized wines that are well made, but unlikable.

And actually, I think I have to agree with David - a lot of the movie's problems for me revolve around Thomas Hayden Church's character.

"The sun, with all those planets revolving about it and dependent on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as if it had nothing else to do"Galileo Galilei

(avatar: me next to the WIYN 3.5 meter telescope at Kitt Peak National Observatory)

As usual, the forum seems to be much more detailed and analytic than I am. For both movies and wine I essentially have one test.... did I enjoy it? For Sideways... the answer was no.... It was not fun to watch. It was simply not entertaining. I do not find it illuminating to watch disagreeable people behaving in disgusting ways. At least it was better than About Schmidt which was so painful we couldn't even watch it all. For Bottle Shock... even though I have read Judgment of Paris and fully knowing that the history and the place and all the rest was wrong.... the answer was yes. It was a diverting piece of total fiction that was fun to watch. Your mileage may differ.

Dale Williams wrote:I also voted for Sideways. Not a great film, but a good one (what's wrong with dislikeable characters?). More than you can say for most of the others (except maybe Secret of SV), though I haven't seen couple of recent ones.

The main issue for me, Dale, was that I don't find Schadenfreude entertaining. I have no problem with dark themes such as those in The Seventh Seal or Solaris or even The Sorrow and the Pity, but I do object to movies that attempt to engage me by offering up others' misbehavior and suffering as sources of entertainment. YMMV of course.

I think it was something I picked up from Ryan and Rogov, but also from you, to a lesser extent: a sense of a snobbish attitude towards the movie. You guys seemed actually offended by the movie and the notion that someone might like it.

And I, like others here it seems, truly enjoyed its depiction of two (or more) miserable, yet human, losers.

And I really can't reconcile the clash of perceptions here.

I was into movies much earlier than I was into wine and I trust my common sense about movies. This was no Citizen Kane, but it was really a nice, touching movie. Yet the people who don't like it seem, to me, to approach it with an emotion bordering on loathing, that it doesn't deserve.

I've only seen two of the movies on the list: I liked Sideways and didn't like Bottle Shocked.

I watch movies to be entertained and Sideways worked (I've watched it twice and will again soon as I just got back from Santa Barbara [tasting report to follow]). Sure the characters are flawed but that's part of the entertainment. And of course the Merlot quote and how Maya described PN:

Maya: No, I- I like to think about the life of wine.Miles Raymond: Yeah.Maya: How it's a living thing. I like to think about what was going on the year the grapes were growing; how the sun was shining; if it rained. I like to think about all the people who tended and picked the grapes. And if it's an old wine, how many of them must be dead by now. I like how wine continues to evolve, like if I opened a bottle of wine today it would taste different than if I'd opened it on any other day, because a bottle of wine is actually alive. And it's constantly evolving and gaining complexity. That is, until it peaks, like your '61. And then it begins its steady, inevitable decline.Miles Raymond: Hmm.Maya: And it tastes so f***ing good.

Bottle Shocked was not entertaining to me - it was boring. I could barely watch it as it was so cliched, like it was written by high school students as a class assignment, the night before it was due, and they ended up getting a C-. Two hours of my life I'll never get back ...

You guys seemed actually offended by the movie and the notion that someone might like it . . . .. . . .people who don't like it seem, to me, to approach it with an emotion bordering on loathing, that it doesn't deserve.

If I came off as condescending I apologize - that was not my intent, although I will not shy away from expressing my dislike of this film. Like I said above, there is certainly nothing wrong with it on a technical level: cinematography, acting, writing, all fine . . . . in fact even the premise is fine. I just found the execution of the plot and characters tasteless and unlikable, and I personally do not understand why people like it so much. I'm not trying to make any objective points about it - this is entirely my personal opinion. I don't loathe it exactly - I do not, for example wish that it had never been made - I simply do not desire to ever see it again.

In contrast, while there are clearly a number of technical flaws in Mondovino, I found it more enjoyable. And that too is entirely my personal opinion. Bottle Shock has all kinds of flaws, but that at least is a feel-good movie. Like Mark said, I simply don't want to watch a movie that makes me feel badly.

"The sun, with all those planets revolving about it and dependent on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as if it had nothing else to do"Galileo Galilei

(avatar: me next to the WIYN 3.5 meter telescope at Kitt Peak National Observatory)

Alexander Payne is from Omaha, Nebraska and both "Election" and "About Schmidt" were partly filmed in Omaha. Nebraska can claim a fair number of famous actors and actresses but I can't think of any other prominent directors from my home state.

Ryan Maderak wrote:Like I said above, there is certainly nothing wrong with it on a technical level: cinematography, acting, writing, all fine . . . . in fact even the premise is fine. I just found the execution of the plot and characters tasteless and unlikable, and I personally do not understand why people like it so much. I'm not trying to make any objective points about it - this is entirely my personal opinion. I don't loathe it exactly - I do not, for example wish that it had never been made - I simply do not desire to ever see it again.

It's funny you should put it that way, Ryan. I really like the movie, but I also agree with you to a large extent. I think it was a really good movie. I thought the writing, acting, cinematography, etc. were all very nicely done. I thought Giamatti, in particular, just nailed the part of a middle aged loser who was so totally lost in his obsession that he could no longer connect with the people in his life. Unfortunately, Giamatti was so good that I spent half of the movie with my eyes closed, thinking, "Oh God in heaven, he's not going to do THAT??!!!" The character of Miles made me cringe so much that I would hesitate to watch the movie again. It's a very good film with some wonderful moments but I don't know that I want to watch any more of Miles than I've already seen.

I think it was something I picked up from Ryan and Rogov, but also from you, to a lesser extent: a sense of a snobbish attitude towards the movie. You guys seemed actually offended by the movie and the notion that someone might like it.

I was certainly not offended by the movie, but I found Hayden-Church's character offensive.

To give some level of context - I despise 99% of television sitcoms as they regularly depict guys exclusively as buffoons. Commericals tend to do the same thing & I specifically avoid products that use that advertising method (luckily I don't buy much beer or many auto parts).

Last night I saw a movie that could pass for a wine movie - The Triplets of Belleville. Its an animated film that is very funny including several scenes relating to wine, restaurants and sommeliers. It won't be to everyone's taste but we loved it, mainly because the dog steals the show.

Sam Platt wrote:Then you obviously never purchased a ticket for The Blair Witch Project, Tin Cup, or any Pauly Shore film. I'm talking viewing pain of the highest level.

You forgot Will Ferrell.

And Adam Sandler.

I have to admit to enjoying Ferrell in "Anchor Man" and a couple of other films. I have to believe that I am simply too unhip to "get" Adam Sandler. Surely he has some talent that I am blind to. I have never found a thing he has done on SNL, or in movies even remotely entertaining, and I want to believe that he is doing something that merits bringing home a regular paycheck from the viewing public. Blackmail perhaps?

Sam

"The biggest problem most people have is that they think they shouldn't have any." - Tony Robbins

Sam Platt wrote: I have to believe that I am simply too unhip to "get" Adam Sandler. Surely he has some talent that I am blind to. I have never found a thing he has done on SNL, or in movies even remotely entertaining...

I think Sandler is more 'goofy' than 'hip'.

But I thought he was great in Punch Drunk Love, perhaps the exception that proves the rule because it's not a comedy and it's high quality.